Most of Detroit hasn’t reported in and Detroit leans heavily Clinton. Even so, this is amazing; polls were showing Bernie down 20 percent to Clinton.
I’m assuming this is based on trade. “Free” trade has destroyed Michigan.
As for Trump, well, no surprise.
Update: Note that a win here only keeps Bernie in the running. He needs to start defeating Clinton by significant margins in order to win. Still, I couldn’t see how Bernie could win if he couldn’t win a state like Michigan, which is almost tailor-made for his message, so this is good news. A couple polls off by 20 percent in his favor in big states and Bernie could still pull it out.
Second Update: Looks like a win for Bernie in Michigan, but note that Clinton won Mississippi with 86 percent. In other words, she won the most delegates today. Bernie MUST start knocking some out of the park soon.
African Americans voted 30 percent for Sanders–that’s his best showing yet.
19- 30-year olds showed up as much as retirees. Can’t remember the last time that happened.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
Michigan is an “open primary” state, which means Independents and even Republicans can vote in the Democratic primary. This does not necessarily mean that I’s & R’s voted for Bernie to sabotage the DP in November, but it is possible.
Ian Welsh
To sabotage? By helping the candidate who polls best against their candidates?
Yeah. No. They didn’t.
Independents did break hard for Bernie over Clinton, mind, but I hardly think that’s likely to be their motivation.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
I recognize that the accuracy of the portion of the polls which suggest that a sufficient portion of the USAmerican public has finally discarded its revulsion to openly professed socialism, and so Sanders could win in November if he is nominated, is an article of faith with you and the majority of this blog community (though Sanders is not a socialist, but simply a European-style social democrat).
I doubt those polls.
The GOP attack machine has largely left Sanders alone so far. What do you think will happen if he is nominated, and so it goes to work smearing him, the way it’s been smearing the Clintons for some 38 years now?
different clue
Genuine political scientists ( not political sports analysts) might want to study how different age-sets of African American voters voted. Also, African American factory workers and thing makers shared the losses in the “bonfire of the industries” set by President Clinton with his NAFTA and WTO and MFN for China.
Those parts of Ohio which were laid waste by Free Trade might also vote heavily for Sanders in the D primary and Trump in the R primary. Those much smaller parts of Indiana near Chicago along the Lake Erie shore should also go for Sanders and Trump when Indiana has their primary. I have no idea what the rest of Indiana might do.
LorenzoStDuBois
Clinton won Mississippi, not Missouri.
Also, would be great to see you delve a little more into your point about trade/Michigan.
That’s all the suggestions you’ll hear from me…
byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Bill H
Winning states is meaningless in Democratic primaries. While Sanders “won” in Michigan, he only got 65 delegates for that win to 68 for Clinton.
Some Guy
Not sure where you get your numbers Bill, Green Papers (the reference used by 538) puts it at Sanders 69 Clinton 61.
At any rate, when your opponent is desperately trying to make the case that they are a done deal and the media is more than willing to go along, winning states is obviously critically important.
Bernie doesn’t have to knock them out of the park, but he does need to continue the steady progress he has made so far and not level off at current levels of support or decline.
Through Super-Tuesday, Sanders had only won as many delegates as 538 estimated he needed to in 4 of 16 states. Since then, he was won enough in 4/6. Generally, he is not getting enough in the South, and is getting more than enough on average everywhere else*. Except there isn’t much South left to vote. * The biggest challenge I see for Sanders is that where people are relatively comfortable he is not doing well enough – results in Mass. and Minn. bode ill for NY and Cali. and maybe Illinois.
Lisa
Great result with an important undertone, the very well disciplined (with the leaders very pro Clinton) black vote cracking.
“Sanders ran even with her among the youngest black voters, opening a generational gap similar to those that had been seen in other states among Latino and white voters.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-democratic-primaries-michigan-20160308-story.html
The Tragically Flip
Clinton had her hedge-fund billionaire and 2008 co-chair pal donate $500,000 to Flint on Sunday to fund water pipe replacement (absolute chump change for a guy who in October gave $100M to a law school so it would be named after him). She was behind in Flint when I went to sleep, I see she edged him out there, but barely. Emptywheel figures her debate attack on Sanders for voting against the second half of TARP as a vote against the auto bailout actually provoked a backlash. I hope so.
Amazing how weak she is at sealing the deal. Two (open) Presidential Primaries now she was the uncontested overwhelming favourite, and in the first went on to lose, and in this, it’s a real race that she still might lose. She’s the Democratic Romney, and not hard to imagine her general election ends up like his.
Zotep
@Lisa
It’s funny how you see this as a conspiracy.
>http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707
Clinton at least takes minority voters into account, instead of claiming their vote because they might have marched with an old dude 60 years ago. Never mind that though, What makes you think that the lack of fire discipline in the army is by design? It’s more important for me to drill you and the other readers than to get salty over something.
Bill is right. Has anyone seen Ton lately?
Zotep
*Drill you for knowledge.
Tony Wikrent
Illinois will be interesting. It is the prime example of post-industrial financialization. Almost all the heavy industry around Chicago is gone, replaced by ginormous flows of money through the futures markets. Look at the composition of futures trading, which clearly shows the shift from agricultural commodities, to currencies, interest rates, and other financial derivatives.
Also, Chicago has a huge population from Poland and other East European countries, who are stalwart Republicans who cling to the myth that “Reagan won the Cold War and brought down the Wall.” Although since the crash, I’ve been told that there are more people going back home than immigrants coming in. The same shift has occurred in the Latino demographic I’m told.
Downstate and in the Quad Cities, the workforces and suppliers of Caterpillar and Deere were also severely battered by free trade, and even more by outsourcing and relocation.
sdf
What would constitute evidence in your eyes? A newspaper with a “Sanders Wins!” headline falling out of a wormhole?
sdf
What would constitute evidence in your eyes? A newspaper with a “Sanders Wins!” headline falling out of a wormhole?
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
@SDF: I simply don’t believe that the USA has changed so much since 1972 that a “hippie candidate” can win the White House now.
Maybe I actually can’t believe it.
There are intuitive truths, which accord with “common sense”, and then there are counter-intuitive truths, such as the findings of relativistic physics, which often defy common sense. For Christians, another counter-intuitive truth would be the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Ian’s “Nice guys finish first” philosophy, and his conviction that life was better for hunter-gatherers, if true, would be other examples of deeply counter-intuitive truths.
Humans often can’t grasp a truth if it is deeply counter-intuitive enough.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
I distrust enthusiasm, and personality cults.
I already have a Savior, thank you very much. I’m not looking for one in this plane of existence.
The Sanders supporters tend to give off the air of being very enthusiastic–as do the Trump supporters, and as did Hitler’s supporters, Mussolini’s supporters, Lenin’s and Mao’s and Castro’s supporters–you get the idea.
That was one reason I never got on board the Obama bandwagon in 2008–his supporters tended to give off an air of being too creepily devoted to his candidacy.
different clue
Clinton’s supporters give off the very same air of very enthusiastic creepy devotion to the Clinton candidacy. What is the motive for pretending otherwise?
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
In which parallel universe is that happening?
sdf
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
Did SDF notice that in the current top post on RD’s site, RD said she would vote for Sanders over any of the Republican candidates?
sdf
From the comment section of that post:
tdraicer:
riverdaughter:
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
Well, SDF, it is, historically, the sort of thinking which leads to tyrannies of one or another flavor.
That does not suggest devotion to Clinton.
It suggests terror of the Reptilian alternatives, and a lack of faith in your precious polls which state that Sanders can beat any of the Reptilians.
187neoliberals
You’re full of it Bill. Enthusiasm for Bernie does not remotely approach the zeal Hitler’s followers had. Hillary has her own fair share of brainwashed devotees, and for you to deny just proves that you’re an ideological tool. I notice that you also consistently write the dumbest comments on here devoid of logic.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
And may you have a nice day, too, 187.
ProNewerDeal
H Clinton aka #LyinHill is acting shamefully, even by poli-trick-ian standards. H Clinton constantly boldly lies on Sanders’ record, such as claiming Sanders was anti-~2009 auto bailout, when Sanders was actually pro-auto bailout, anti-2B2F Bank$ta bailout.
H Clinton & her “surrogates” constantly claim Sanders is sexist & racist against Blacks & Latinos. Disgusting & baseless.
H Clinton’s attack on MedicareForAll is disgusting. Per Harvard Public Health, 30K+ USians die yearly due to not having Civilized CAN-style MedicareForAll, a far worse threat than the Terist Boogeyman Du Jour like IS1S. I wish Sanders would point this out every debate & speech.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker, pls explain the Cult of Personality of H Clinton voters, who correctly criticized 0bama for Flip-Flopping in 2009 to be anti-Public Option & anti-MedicareForAll, but it is OK for their Dear Leader H Clinton 2016 to be anti both policies. Oh H Clinton just Flip Flopped on Public Option a few days ago to “Me Too” with Sanders; surely a Pres H Clinton would “pull an 0bama” & again be anti-Public Option in Jan 2017.
Explain the H Clinton Cult of Personality of claiming “H Clinton has the most superior experience Evah!”, when her experience is 8 yrs as Senator, 4 yrs as Sec of State. Sanders experience is actually superior to H Clinton’s, with an ongoing 9 yrs as Senator, 16 yrs as US House Rep, 8 yrs executive experience as Burlington, VT mayor. Furthermore, H Clinton’s judgement & extreme flip-flopping have been terrible, on the Iraq War, MedicareForAll, etc. Sanders has shown excellent judgement over decades, especially relative to his peer Fed Gov politicians, who are often corrupt & flip-floppas.
H Clinton is fortunate Sanders refuses to attack negatively. I wish Sanders would go negative in terms of correctly pointing all of H Clinton’s corruption & flip-flopping. Or at least outsource it, perhaps to a Black woman surrogate like Nina Turner, so H Clinton can’t baselessly cry the Sexist Racist card.
willf
Clinton at least takes minority voters into account, instead of claiming their vote…
No, she takes their votes for granted. Do you not remember hearing about her “firewall” over and over again? What is a “firewall” in this context, except votes that are assumed to be already in her column?
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
PND, it boils down to this: I fear either Donaldus Trumpus Caesar or Oliver Cromwell Cruz in the White House, and I don’t think your man can keep either of them out, Teh Pollz notwithstanding.
Safety comes first.
reslez
Some Guy – Sanders won MN by 23 points. How much better do you think he needed to do there? The result in MA was disappointing, but coming from twenty points behind in Michigan is a big deal. In the last few days there were things coming from the campaign itself that sounded like they’d lost confidence and enthusiasm. Sanders was fighting to survive, not to win. Whether they can turn that around psychologically is an open question.
Tom
Okay Sanders is now hitting the Blue States that will actually vote him into office unlike the Super Tuesday States that vote Republican. He wins hard here, he clinches the nomination regardless of Hillary’s Super Delegates being dicks.
Hugh
The media and pundit elite keep declaring the Trump and Sanders’ campaigns dead, and the voters keep proving them wrong. I don’t think either of these campaigns started off as serious contenders, but they have turned into ones, almost despite themselves, because of the immense discontent in the country they tap into. Americans are sick to death of business as usual. The status quo is killing them, and all the establishments of both parties are offering them is more of the same. The parties may be fracturing, but these establishments are far from dead themselves. Identity politics may not be what they were, but they still have considerable force. Trump may be winning, but about 60% of Republicans are not voting for him. And the party apparatus is noisily conspiring to steal the nomination from him, if it can, at the convention, without much thought of how either Trump or his supporters will react to this. The situation among the Democrats is different because, as I have written before, the Democratic party process is so much more anti-democratic than the Republican one. The party machine, at both the state and national level, is completely in the bag for Clinton. Debates are few, because this is what Clinton wanted, and new ones are added only if Clinton thinks they will benefit her. The early primaries were weighted toward conservative Southern states where Clinton was expected to do well even though it was unlikely that she, or any Democrat, would carry them in the general election. Finally, there are the superdelegates, an offshoot of the party machine and the most obvious evidence of just how rigged the Democratic nomination process is, i.e. the final say on the nominee is too important to be left to mere voters. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have a built-in mechanism to steal the nomination. But again, the question is how will Sanders and his supporters react. Just as voters have kept Trump and Sanders in the race, despite their parties, it is hard to see these voters kowtowing to whatever choice the parties try to ram down their throats. So even if Sanders accepted defeat at the hands of a rigged process, it is hard to see his supporters doing so.
Ian Welsh
Since I believe neither that good guys always win or that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was in all ways better than a modern 1st world lifestyle, it is interesting to see the standard display of an inability to think with qualifiers.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
The Democratic Party did, once, leave its nominating decision up to the wisdom of The Humble But Wise Common Citizen.
That happened in 1972.
Does anyone need to be reminded of the result of the Presidential general election of 1972?
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
Perhaps I misunderstood our host.
Meh, it’s Da Intertoobz; who cares? 😆
sdf
tdraicer had previously written that Sanders and Trump are both trying to “blow up the system”, so it’s pretty clear that “Arsonists” referred to Sanders supporters.
Here’s another comment, from William:
So milquetoast welfare-statism is apparently on a par with the Committee for Public Safety.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
The point is not what Sanders actually thinks or believes, but how the GOP Smear Machine can twist his past words–some of which express, ahem, eccentric views–to make the knuckle-walking USAmerican public believe Sanders thinks or believes.
The Smear Machine has largely left Sanders alone, so far, because its masters think he can’t be nominated. What will happen if he is nominated, and so the Machine goes to work on him?
Of course Sanders does not advocate Jacobin or Khmer Rouge policies, but the Machine can make the vacuum-skulled U. S. public believe he does.
I will always support democracy for Churchill’s reason,
if no other, but the continuing popularity of Da Trumpfoddah is shaking my faith in democracy somewhat.
Hugh
“The point is not what Sanders actually thinks or believes”
Well, if it doesn’t matter what any candidate actually thinks and believes, isn’t this an admission of the complete and irretrievable corruption of our political system?
As for Smear Machines both Democratic and Republican, how have they worked out so far? Sanders and Trump are both around, indeed flourishing. Clinton’s attempts to smear Sanders have backfired just as spectacularly as Cruz, Rubio, Jeb, and the regular Republican establishment’s all have against Trump. What insulates Trump and Sanders from such establishment attacks is that both are expressions of the public discontent. It is precisely because people identify with what Trump and Sanders are saying, that they don’t care what their opponents have to say about them.
El Guapo
Anyone who talks about fucking 1972, as if it has any relevance in 2016, is completely clueless and best ignored. It would be great if the mindless Clinton-bots pissed off back to the confluence or some place similar. There are plenty of websites around for partisan democrat sheeple.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
Oh, that’s right. We all wake up in a new world every day, and so the past has no relevance to the present. How silly of me to forget that. 🙄
Jeff Wegerson
1964
different clue
I find The Confluence to be a high-value blog, myself. I wish I had known about it a couple years before 2008 . . . . back when about all I read was Digby. But Digby never said word one about The Confluence. I do dimly remember someone named “Rivedaughter” sometimes commenting at Digby . . . long before Digby went all Spoonie-poo Atkins on us and banned commenting. Was it the same “Riverdaughter” as The Confluence’s Riverdaughter? If so, it is unfortunate that sometime-commenter “Riverdaughter” on Digby-threads was too polite and modest to leave a link to her blog . . . or I might have found my way to it.
Now . . . back and forward to 1972. Naked Capitalism recently ran an interesting Mark Ames Pando article about Trump and Roger Stone and sometimes Reverend Al Sharpton working together on shared political projects. Ames also wrote in some detail about Stone’s conduct of much sabotage against “more viable” Democratic nominee-wannabes to knock them out and leave McGovern as the last one standing. Was McGovern’s loss to Nixon inevitable, based on McGovern’s suicidal nice-guyness in a nasty field and nasty profession? I think that could be part of it. McGovern’s winning of the nomination did show a measure of political craftiness against his opponents. He emerged with a somewhat insurgent image. But then he threw it all away by accepting a piece of fece named Thomas Eagleton as his VP . . . and by trying to kiss and make up with all the EstabliDems he had just defeated. Only to have them all collaborate closely with Nixon to get Nixon elected and keep control of the Dparty.
And that becomes relevant to election 2016. I can see a scenario in which Ivory Bill Woodpecker’s prediction of a Republican victory against a Candidate Sanders comes true.
And it goes like this: If Sanders won the D nomination so fairly and squarely that it could not be denied to him, then the D party establishment would stab Sanders in the back as many times as needed to assure a Sanders defeat. The party Leadership of Clintonites, Obamazoids, Pelosians and Reidists is a leadership of vile, filthy and immoral scum. Of COURSE they would try and get the Republican elected if Sanders got the D nomination. It would be a perfect expression of everything the D-party elite stands for. But if Sanders wins the nomination then let Sanders run. And let the D-Party elite throw the election to the Republicans in front of God AND C-SPAN . . . with the Whole World Watching. Let the D-Party elite put fresh tens of millions of new people in touch with the Inner Arsonist they never knew they had.
Lisa
This is one of the key factors that will win or lose the election:
“33% of Sanders Supporters Will Not Vote for Clinton If She Wins Nomination”
http://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-supporters/
sdf
The commenter I quoted was stating his own opinion of Sanders, not speculating about possible GOP smears. So do you concede the point that Clinton supporters can be as OTT as Sanders supporters? In this Universe?
V. Arnold
Oh crap! What the hell does OTT mean?
Stop using jargon and speak plain English! Okay?
sdf
“over the top”
RJMeyers
“33% of Sanders Supporters Will Not Vote for Clinton If She Wins Nomination”
Yeah, that’s currently my sentiment. I actually think Clinton will, in the long run, be even worse than Trump. Another 4 to 8 years of keeping the lid on populist rage before it all explodes again. Another 4 to 8 years for some other demagogue to apply Trump’s lessons and mold some movement that will actually win. The best outcome I can see from a Clinton presidency is the current elites regaining their footing and continuing this miserable path of slow decline we’re living while the world burns.
To the comment above mentioning Inner Arsonists: From my point of view, everything’s already on fire. Trump vs. Clinton is a choice between throwing more gas on the flames or just hoping it burns itself out (it won’t, imo). I’d like to vote for someone who is at least trying to stop the flames, even if he is unlikely to succeed.
Lisa
Well this is worth another 10% of votes to Trump…
Big Tech Bosses Meet in Secret on Private Island to Stop Donald Trump
http://sputniknews.com/us/20160308/1035967869/stop-trump-tech-bosses.html
Lisa
And on a side note, just to show that stupidity of the elites seems to be a communicable disease:
“Neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics: “China’s finance minister has come under fire after he proposed changing a labour law he said was overprotective of employees and inflexible to business” [FT, “China public outcry over finance minister comments”] “Ultimately, he said, making it easier to fire workers would benefit the workers themselves. “Who eventually bears the costs? The working class who the law was intended to protect,” [Lou Jiwei] said.” And then there’s this: “Mr Lou compounded the perception that he was out of touch with the working classes when he answered a question about government debt, saying that as long as it was invested wisely in productive assets it was OK. It was like a family going into debt to fund its mortgage, he added.” So China’s finance minister believes that government is like a household. “‘The government doesn’t care whether we live or die!’ one Weibo user said. “Our salaries are not enough to pay a mortgage.” If China’s ruling class is this embubbled and captured, China really is in trouble. And Chinese workers and peasants, once they get rolling, don’t crap around.”
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/200pm-water-cooler-3102016.html
sdf
The disease vector is called “empire”. All that “defense” spending is a very good way for elites to persuade other elites to share in their “stupidity”.
(And might I add as a side note of my own that I abhor the inane and humiliating formulation that demands that citizens of countries that have awful policy regimes forced on them by the U.S. to pat U.S.ians on the back and say “there, there, as you can see things are bad all over, don’t beat up on yourselves.” This goes back at least ten years, as I distinctly recall around that time some Canadian posters getting upbraided on FDL for having the temerity to object to such a situation in a straightforward way.)
BDBlue
I don’t think Hillary is counting on Bernie voters. She knows she’ll get some, probably hispanics, for example, if Trump is the nominee. But I agree with lambert at NakedCapitalism that she’s counting on Republican women and moderates to make up those votes for her.
I also think the Dem elites care more about beating Republicans than they do Bernie (or anyone else on the nominal left who could take control of the party). I don’t think that’s true. If Trump or Cruz win, they all keep their jobs and the party raises money off of them. Indeed, the Dems probably become even more of corporate America’s choice if Trump wins. Sure they’d like to have the presidency, but mostly they want their jobs and to keep the corporate cash flowing. Now, there is no doubt a chunk of Congressional Dems, who would probably be pleased with Bernie, but that’s not the party leadership.
Here’s a fun thought – if there were no Trump, could Bernie – or someone running on Bernie’s platform without the word socialist in their background – have won the Republican nomination?
BDBlue
Oops, my opening sentence should’ve stated that “I think anyone assuming the Dem elites care more about beating Republicans…”
Ugh.
RJMeyers
This is anecdotal, but much of my extended family consists of moderate Republican women, and they absolutely despise Hillary. They hate Trump too, and to the best of my knowledge are not planning to vote for either of them.
Mallam
No. Trump is succeeding because of white supremacy. Not any sort of semblance of an “economic plan”. As Mandos constantly points out, the identity part of this is inseparable.
Jeff W
Yes, because substantial majorities of Republicans agree with a lot of what Sanders is proposing.
“White supremacy” à la Trump is a sufficient condition to win the Republican nomination—the whole subtext of the Republican appeal is to white Christians—but that might not be necessary if a candidate’s proposals are in line with what most people want. (That’s never been tried so who knows?) The framing of some of the proposals would have to be a bit different—e.g., we would not have universal health care as of right based on what all other advanced countries do; instead it would merely be an extension of what some people already have in this country (i.e., good ol’ American Medicare). Winning might not be as likely but I wouldn’t necessarily rule it out.